This list provides absolutely nothing new at all. Except one catagory which is absurd.

"Musical". This person has seriously overstepped the boundaries of what intelligence is. Intelligence is a physical process clearly understood by specialists in the field. This person is not in the field. It sounds like he might be that type of person that use the term "emotional intelligence" which is scientifically absurd. There is only one mental process which is designated as being intelligence.

This person is WAY out of their league and way out of their education. This is the type of broken boundaries which damage the research of us who take this pursuit seriously. Horrible horrible work on this "professors" part.

Probably over 99% of the population uses the word intelligence as the wrong type of word.

For instance you cannot say "Hi Kerrie, I've got some jumping to share with you." It's the wrong type of word.

Intelligence is a processing ability that is defined in only mathematical and physic(al) equations.

You can't say intelligence is the ability to.........

Just like you can't say Newton's second law is the ability to......

Do you see what I mean? Humans think intelligence is a human ability to "do something". Intelligence is a process like respiration, digestion, photosynthesis.

With that said it becomes obvious music talent can't be a form of intelligence just like a piece of apple pie can't be a forum of newton's law. It isn't a sensical sentence. I know it's difficult for some people to relearn the fact that intelligence is a physical process and not an ability...

This can be made more evident in attempts to createo artificial intelligence.The goal is merely to use computer programms to mimic the process - just like a computer program that can mimic an ecological system to determin what excess fishing will do to the reef etc...

It's a hard thing for people to understand and to accept. I find this in classes I teach - but in a student environment they are much more likely to feel good about knowing what intelligence really is.

For instance Kerrie, let's say I smoke and you don't. Your respiratory capacity would probably be much stronger than mine.

In just the same way, someone who was fetal alcohol syndrome might have a less strong intelligence.

I can say more on this if anyone wants - don't want to bore you all :)

I mean, if intelligence is as you define it the ability to process information, well, music is nothing but math.

That being said, some people have a particular knack for music. I know a guy that is dumb as a brick, would probably struggle with a simple problem like 15x10. Infact, the only thing I've ever known him to be incredibly good at was playing guitar. Let him listen to a song he's never heard before, maybe twice, and the third time around he'll play right along with the music.

Now, seeing as how music is nothing more then a different form of mathematics, and there are more ppl in the world then my friend with that described ability, what exactly would you call it?

Not arguing your point about peoples misuse of words though. Musical ability is a form of intelligence though. You do process info, either by hearing it, or reading it from a sheet. So, you have input of info, and the music is the results of the processing.

MegaShawn - I have played music for 23 years, and am currently the CEO of a record label in California. I've taught music for 6 years, and written 4 scores for orchestra.

Originally posted by megashawn What exactly do you think music is? Do you play any instruments?
{/quote]

Music is the progression through time of pitches of a chosen set.

Originally posted by megashawn
I mean, if intelligence is as you define it the ability to process information, well, music is nothing but math.

What intelligence is has nothing to do with what music is. I see no logical connection between these two withouts assumptions.

Originally posted by megashawn
That being said, some people have a particular knack for music. I know a guy that is dumb as a brick, would probably struggle with a simple problem like 15x10. Infact, the only thing I've ever known him to be incredibly good at was playing guitar. Let him listen to a song he's never heard before, maybe twice, and the third time around he'll play right along with the music.

So what? This has nothing to do with the topic. Some people who have no legs can lift 500 pounds with their arms - so what?

Originally posted by megashawn
Now, seeing as how music is nothing more then a different form of mathematics, and there are more ppl in the world then my friend with that described ability, what exactly would you call it?

How you gather that music is "nothing more than a different form of mathematics" does not compute.

There is no forms of math - and there is no claim by anyone that music has anything to do with math. Again, there's no logical connection between your friend and this situation. It's a random point you've posted but has nothing to do with this.

Originally posted by megashawn
Not arguing your point about peoples misuse of words though. Musical ability is a form of intelligence though. You do process info, either by hearing it, or reading it from a sheet. So, you have input of info, and the music is the results of the processing.

And here you conclude from 4 false premises that music is a form of intelligence.

I thought I stated above the scientific definition of intelligence.

Apparently you missed one (well many) important points.

The definition I gave is the scientific definition. I was not displaying a personal opinion.

This is what scientists have designated as being intelligence - it's not up for debate unless you have an enormously overwhelming amount of evidence.

You offer an interesting insight into the definition of intelligence...I began this thread because I believe IQ tests only measure a minor amount of one's abilities...as stated in the link:

The idea of multiple intelligences is important because it allows for educators to identify differing strengths and weaknesses in students and also contradicts the idea that intelligence can be measured through IQ. In researching about genius, we found that Howard Gardner's theory of Multiple Intelligences provides a great alternative to the popular measurable IQ method.

I get annoyed when the IQ of a person is glorified but other abilities are not, such as musical ability...

Originally posted by Kerrie You offer an interesting insight into the definition of intelligence...I began this thread because I believe IQ tests only measure a minor amount of one's abilities...as stated in the link:

Thanks! It comes from lots o' research. Intelligence is one of those topics, the information of which seems to not leak out into the public.

Originally posted by Kerrie I get annoyed when the IQ of a person is glorified but other abilities are not, such as musical ability...

Yeah - Having a high IQ can be a good quality for sure, but it doesn't really seem to lead to any special circumstances in life. Poor people have high IQs, so do rich people. Although it does correlate to some things.

Originally posted by Kerrie how do we explain situations like these with an IQ test?

Some of them IQ does test, like calculating. Some of them it does not test.

The big problem we have here is Gardners misuse of the word intelligence. It means what I stated earlier, in the field of science which deal with the part of the animal body that contains this process.

And so in using this word he's attempting to say that these abilities are some how more important on the hierarchy of all a human can do.

They are not. They are merely things a person can do, just like singing, dancing, writing a story etc....

I'm speaking particularly of his mention of musical ability.

To be frank, I've played music at all ends, and taught and wrote, for 23 years.

Claiming someone can replicate piano pitches of a song from hearing it once has 100% nothing to do with musical ability.

Music is taught - it is not innate. That's like saying reading is innate. An ability which may assist this process may be innate, but musical knowledge is learned.

So we have alot of issues here - colleagues in my fields have big issues with this kind of imporper terminology and generalizations.

You got me on a roll here, this is a topic I often speak on so it's on the tip of my tongue.

Once we replace this misuse of the word intelligence in Gardners work with another word, we notice that, for example if we use the word "ability", that all he is doing is talking about a few of the literally billions of abilities humans have.

(mis)Using the intelligence makes it seem like he is talking about some kind of hierarchical dictator of humans ultimate abilities - and that someone who can caculuate quickly, play perfect pitch songs with one listen, and has excellent spatial skills is anymore "intelligent" or anymoreo "anything" for that matter, than a person who can balance a spoon on there nose, belch out jingle bells, and or dribble four basketballs at once.

See what I mean?

I understand that his attempt appears, based on the webpage, to be to single out the "true" abilities that designate what he calls intelligence, or desginate the tip of the hierarchy from which all abilities progress downward from.

It's just that he is not doing that, but it would appear he is since he uses this word intelligence.

(You might be able to see that we in these fields take a bit of an issue with this!).

I have to agree with Biology on this. Music can be "taught" people can improve thier music ability by practicing. It's true some people learn music more rapidly than others. But this could be due to other improved abilities such as accute pitch, etc that help them master this quicker. Intelligence isn't something that can be improved through any amount of practice. It's static(allbeit on a curve through early adulthood). Mentat and I had an extensive discussion about this before. Intelligence and musical ability through practice are two different things. I play guitar and piano. When I started I sucked.I was no virtuoso. But I've grudually improved over the yeaars. I can't say that I'm more intelligent that I was when I began. Perhaps more knowledgable, but as it has been stated and confirmed before, intelligence and knowledge are two separate things.

As For Autism, Asperger's Syndrome and other disorders associated with "rainman syndrome". First you should know that only 10 percent of autistic patients exhibit savant syndrome. It's been theorized that these types people are compensating for damage- in much the same way a blind man tends to have an increase sense of smell and hearing ability.

The brain's right hemisphere
Autistic savant behaviour is so far unexplained. However, researchers think it might have something to do with the right hemisphere of the brain.

The brain is divided into two hemispheres, left and right, bridged by a thick band of nerve fibres called the corpus callosum. While left hemisphere skills are involved with symbolism and interpretation (such as understanding words and body language), the skills of the right hemisphere are much more concrete and direct (such as memory).

CT and MRI scans of the brains of autistic savants suggest that the right hemisphere is compensating for damage in the left hemisphere. It seems that the right hemisphere of an autistic savant focuses its attention on one of the five senses - for example, if it concentrates on hearing, then the autistic savant may have a special skill in music. Research is ongoing.

Originally posted by BiologyForums This list provides absolutely nothing new at all. Except one catagory which is absurd.

"Musical". This person has seriously overstepped the boundaries of what intelligence is. Intelligence is a physical process clearly understood by specialists in the field. This person is not in the field. It sounds like he might be that type of person that use the term "emotional intelligence" which is scientifically absurd. There is only one mental process which is designated as being intelligence.

This person is WAY out of their league and way out of their education. This is the type of broken boundaries which damage the research of us who take this pursuit seriously. Horrible horrible work on this "professors" part.

The problem for me is, I don't think you took enough time to understood Kerrie's position because your refutation is so uncompromisingly and instantly negating.

I think she sees something even if she hasn't expressed it precisely . . . do you know what it is?

I didn't see anything where Kerrie was displaying much of an opinion. Everything she said was quoted from other sources....and she asked me "what I thought". I wasn't agreeing or disagreeing with her - I didn't think she made a claim of her own....

Originally posted by Zantra I don't know what Kerrie sees, but you seem to know. Very interested to hear your take on this.

Well, in a way this is related to the my recent thread on "rightness."

Who gets to define what is valuable? Let's say you have the responsiblity for developing the IQ test all the world will use, and you are firmly convinced that intelligence is best when it produces products/services useful to society.

Guess what sorts of problems are going to show up on the test?

Dominance prevails and IQ values reflect the values of those dominating. I realize the argument can be made that if something is dominating, it must be superior. But in actuality that is not always or even mostly true.

If one dumps cayenne in the soup, it will dominate, but does it make the best soup? Quality is very often (maybe MOST often) found in subtlty. As a music listener, my tastes have steadily moved toward subtlty; and the same is true for me with food, wine, sex, art . . .

So the big guys who are in power can define "best" how they please. Might makes right, doesn't it? And who, speaking from the more subtle place, dares question that?

Originally posted by LW Sleeth Well, in a way this is related to the my recent thread on "rightness."

Who gets to define what is valuable? Let's say you have the responsiblity for developing the IQ test all the world will use, and you are firmly convinced that intelligence is best when it produces products/services useful to society.

Guess what sorts of problems are going to show up on the test?

Dominance prevails and IQ values reflect the values of those dominating. I realize the argument can be made that if something is dominating, it must be superior. But in actuality that is not always or even mostly true.

If one dumps cayenne in the soup, it will dominate, but does it make the best soup? Quality is very often (maybe MOST often) found in subtlty. As a music listener, my tastes have steadily moved toward subtlty; and the same is true for me with food, wine, sex, art . . .

So the big guys who are in power can define "best" how they please. Might makes right, doesn't it? And who, speaking from the more subtle place, dares question that?

I don't know if what you're saying is entirely consistent, so I would appreciate it if you clarified your stance a little. You say that the 'ability to' do something does not constitute intelligence-- but you also seem to think that mathematical aptitude is a genuine form of intelligence. So how precisely can the ability to do quick calculations in your head be a form of intelligence, while the ability to pick up a song after a couple of lessons not be?

You also say that intelligence is best seen as a process. Exactly what kind of process do you mean? It must be something more specific than 'neural information processing,' because then any activity in the brain can be seen as a form of intelligence. So what exactly is it about the process of intelligence, as you define it, that delineates it from other neural processes in the brain?

You also seem to imply the criterion that that which can be taught does not constitute a form of intelligence. But if mathematical aptitude constitutes a form of intelligence, then clearly this intelligence depends on some kind of formal teaching. For instance, if I had never taken math beyond the grade school level, I would have much greater difficulty performing calculations in my head. Now there is a distinction to be made; is this the case because of the math I was taught, or was the continual experience of doing calculations honing some innate mathematical ability of mine? I think you would say the latter, and I would (mostly) agree. But can't we then also look at the process of formally learning music as, on some level, honing some innate musical ability? Would it then be incorrect to denote this innate musical ability as musical intelligence?

As an aside, I think you overstate your case when you talk about the firm grasp the scientific community has on the concept of intelligence. If we understood intelligence that well, the field of artificial intelligence might have lived up to some of its bold predictions by now. Even some of the more successful applications, such as Deep Blue, rely more on a priori knowledge and brute force than actual intelligence. Deep Blue has beaten the best chess player in the world because it was programmed to give each chess piece a particular value as determined by human chess masters and because the breadth and depth of its analysis of future moves was much, much greater than is humanly possible. The ratio of the quality of strategy to computational resources is still much higher in the human than in the computer; I would argue that this efficiency of information processing is part of what constitutes true intelligence. Classical AI has run into countless theoretical objections, and more importantly, its progress as a field has continually run into one brick wall after another. Simulated neural networks are a better approach, but even the results here have been relatively modest thus far.

How did this post constitute a conspiracy theory? I think it is a valid point. The scientific community may have formulated specific criteria for what constitutes intelligence, but that does not make it an open and shut case. It may be that, for the scientific purposes, the definition is overly narrow and does not capture what we usually mean when we say 'intelligence' (still waiting for BiologyForums to get back to me on this one)-- in which case I would argue that it is the scientific community that is misusing the word by essentially redefining it. Now this would not be a malicious action on their part, so it wouldn't constitute a 'conspiracy'-- it's not like the scientists are all getting together plotting ways to keep the lowly people down-- but the simple fact is that the scientific stance on the matter will have a sociological impact, especially if it is used to guage the value of human beings.

Not to sidetrack, but you bring up some very good points. How close are we to formulating algorythms that closely parallel human thought? Obviously this would go beyond simply learning from your mistakes. or am I looking too deep and it is as simple as that? Was deep blue indeed capable of learning from trial and error? I would certainly think so. Otherwise we did nothing more than immensely scale up the EMACS. I guess a more humanistic approach would be "reading your opponent"? Sensing his posture, attitude, body signs, etc, and figuring that into the equation? Then you would have to figure in emotions such as anxiety, arrogance, fear,or any other psychological aspects that might figure into it. unfortunately those things can't at this point be fully integrated into a machine, so replication of realistic AI is still decades away. At least it seems to me. Maybe someone could talk about this more ?